It’s not surprising that a vicious and aggressive attack would prompt an equally hysterical response. Such is the case with the recent campaign against the New Israel Fund (over its unintended contributions to the Goldstone Report) and the counter-campaign launched by NIF and its allies.
In recent weeks, Israel has been described as a country where the parliament has “breathed new life into Joseph McCarthy’s legacy” (in the words of Hagai El-Ad of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel), a country where there is an “increasingly authoritarian and extremist ideology taking hold” (as NIF itself put it), and a country in danger of sliding toward “fascism” and where “disaster is on our door-step” (as Haim Oron, head of the leftist Meretz party, wrote).
Not long ago, when J Street, a new dovish Jewish lobby, was established in Washington, its supporters were complaining that the American Jewish debate over Israel had been muted, hushed by the Jewish establishment. We should have a debate about Israel as fierce and as vigorous as Israelis themselves have, those behind J Street kept saying. Why can Israelis air their differences with such force and we American Jews can’t? Why can’t we be as blunt and aggressive when we disagree with Israel’s policies?
Apparently, such comparisons work for the proponents of “open debate” only when they themselves benefit from it. They enjoy the intensity of the Israeli domestic debate, the bluntness of it, but only when it serves their goals. Now — when the dragon of Israel’s aggressive public discourse has seared the holier-than-thou New Israel Fund — fierce debate doesn’t seem as appealing.
Granted, the criticism of NIF was at times ugly in tone, too personal and quite disgusting in its use of tasteless images of NIF’s president, Naomi Chazan (the kinds of things one typically finds in fierce Israeli debates). But it is also a manifestation of real concerns and legitimate frustrations that Israelis have with the way liberal American Jews and their Israeli emissaries try to affect Israeli society.
Yes, it was a blunt message: NIF, we don’t like how you strengthen organizations that we find harmful to Israel. We don’t like that your grants support anti-Zionist Arab groups, that you help people who busy themselves bad-mouthing Israel and its policies around the world, that you have too many friends who seem to think that Israel can do no right, that you seem quite unmoved by the anxieties of Israelis who worry about the likes of the Goldstone Report and quite unready to share the burden of rebutting unfair criticisms of Israel.
I don’t expect NIF and its beneficiaries to enjoy such a message. But this isn’t McCarthyism. It’s telling the NIF crowd the blunt truth, and maybe, hopefully, making them realize that while they’re busy making their liberal benefactors abroad happy, they’ve lost touch with Israelis.
But the alarmist activists and commentators say that the current campaign against NIF is actually just one part of a larger pattern of recent events threatening Israeli democracy. They cite the arrests of protesters opposed to the judicial expropriation of Palestinian homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem and the police questioning of Israeli feminists who hold prayer services at the Western Wall. Both of these situations, however, are more complicated than what proponents of the “McCarthyism” narrative would have us believe.
Yes, the arrangement at the Western Wall is shameful. It should be changed. However, it won’t be changed unless Israelis themselves want it to change. While Women of the Wall — the group that’s making the waves — should be commended for its success in mobilizing American Jewish opinion, these women (much like NIF) have failed to marshal significant Israeli support behind their cause. Without a transformation in Israeli attitudes, without enough Israelis sufficiently unhappy about the current arrangements to take a stand, there will be no change at the Wall. If one believes that the police were acting to silence the women, rather than simply behaving stupidly, one doesn’t understand Israeli realities. Frankly, there’s no need for silencing a group that hardly has any voice.
The issue of the demonstrations in Sheikh Jarrah is more serious. But here, again, the alarmists are looking at the glass only as if it were half-empty. While police arrests of demonstrators were questionable and unprovoked, an Israeli court was quick to fix things and affirm the protesters’ freedom to demonstrate. There were protests, arrests, appeals — and the rule of law prevailed. These aren’t signs that Israel is on its way to “fascism” but rather of a healthy democracy.
The dire predictions about the future of Israeli democracy are being propagated by those who got tired of trying to persuade Israelis and rally them to their cause — the real “democratic” way. Instead, they have decided to force Israelis into submission by way of marshaling external pressure. While this approach may succeed in frightening their allies abroad, it’s not going to win them many new friends at home.
Shmuel Rosner is a columnist for The Jerusalem Post and for Ma’ariv. He is the nonfiction editor for the publishing house Kinneret-Zmora and a fellow at the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Cleveland Kidnapping, Elizabeth Smart and Us
Tracing the Jewish Origins of the Holy Ghost
Ethical Kosher Seal Stalls Amid Orthodox Opposition
Baby Boomers’ Rocky Road to Jewish Love
Rama Burshtein Offers Rare Glimpse of Orthodox World
You've successfully signed up!
The NIF and other leftist idealogues want to bring Israel to its knees, they want Israel to be forced to do things that severely endanger the everyday lives of its jewish citizens. It wants Israel to be punished for not committing suicidal acts.
Tough public debate yes - incitement no. It is difficult to draw the line beteen the two. However, the caricatures of Naomi Chazan were much more than "distasteful." If they had been created by non-Jews, we would label them anti-Semitic. The Im Tirtzu report was not simply a contribution to vibrant debate, it was misleading and sometimes downright false. To be fair, it was journalists who spread the idea that 92% of the data critical of Israel in the Goldstone report came from Israeli organizations funded by the NIF. The report doesn't make that claim. The issue of the Women at the Wall is not that the State or some portion of the public disagrees with them, but how the police chose to handle the matter. The same is true for Sheikh Jarakh. The courts strong criticism of the police is a positive note, but doesn't erase spending Shabbat in jail, not to mention the systematic bias and standing by when Palestinians are attacked. Shmuel also neglects what may be most dangerous of all, the efforts begun by the NGO Monitor and now being carried forward by a growing number of MK's to dry up funding for Israeli Human Rights organizations. There is one more bright light - the outpouring of disgust by many Israelis, including those that do not agree with Israeli HR organizations on the issues.
I have been amazed that attempts to change Israeli society get wide support from American Reform and Liberal Jews, but no support from Israelis. When Israelis told us American Jews the only real Zionists were living in Israel, we begged to differ. Now that American non-Orthodox Jews are trying to impose their own liberal agenda on Israeli Judaism, they look equally out of touch. Each society has its own history and values and we have to respect that. Will the Third Temple have alternative 'sanctuaries' for Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative, Orthodox and Hasidic Jews?
As nice as it is to think things aren't at all bad, Shmuel Rosner fails to convince because of his gross generalisations about Israelis, which serve to elide popular opinion with coalition politics and the actions of the police. In truth, he has sided with a far Rightist campaign and assumes Israeli opinion in general can be identified with that. Im Tirtsu's combative politics matches that of its funders and of the party politicians who serve as its leaders. It is not enough to point out that it uses the early Cold War tactics of McCarthy, because McCarthy worked within an elected framework - like the Communist 'student movements' which were staffed by ageing militants, Im Tirtsu seeks to invent a democratic youthful image for itself, entirely as a cover for the narrow partisan interests it serves.
You say, Women of the Wall "have failed to marshal significant Israeli support behind their cause."
How about putting the blame on apathetic, chauvinistic Israelis themselves instead of on the activists who according to you aren't doing enough?
To John. I thought the Israeli civil court resolved the women at the Wall issue by setting aside Robinson's Arch for any non-Orthodox services. Although there is nothing wrong with women wearing a specifically female tallis or women leining for women where there is no male minyan, this is not the custom at the Kosel or the minhag Yerushalayim. I don't think apathy is the issue. It's the same as not allowing a Cantor to daven in Ivrit in an Ashkenazic synagogue. Each place has its own customs.
When you phrase complaints against the NIF as “we don’t like this about the NIF and we don’t like that about the NIF,” Mr. Rosner, it isn’t McCarthyism. However, this is not what Im Tirtzu and their allies have generally done.
Im Tirtzu and their allies in Israel and the US have indiscriminately accused their opponents of largely unsubstantiated charges, including demagogically attacking the character and patriotism of the NIF, Naomi Chazan, and those who defend Chazan and the NIF. This seems to me a textbook case of McCarthyism.
Go ahead and criticize the NIF with specific, substantiated complaints: Israel —and the US— are free countries. But leave the insinuating demagoguery to that senator from Wisconsin.
Seems from the above comments that much has already been said - debate is good, but using the institutions of government to quash dissent isn't debate and disagreement, it's something much uglier and totalitarian.
Add in the gross generalizations of Israeli sentiment.
On another note regarding the messenger - it wasn't so long ago we were hearing how Maariv was in huge trouble trying to compete with Sheldon Adelsons rag. Perhaps they became confused and thought that to be competitive they had to become more right wing and dramatic, rather than realize that they are fighting against FREE.
As an Israeli living in Tel Aviv, I can tell you, nothing is worse than the Ha'aretz rag which often reads like the propoganda mouthpiece of the Muslim Brotherhood with it's smears and lies.
NIF's cartoon "broygez" is typical far-lefty hypocrisy....after years of cartoons comparing Israel to Pharoh, Haman and worse, comparing IDF soldiers to Nazis etc... (see Tikkun, Jews Against the Occupation etc.. let alone all the NIF funded groups) the anti-Zionist left is getting all apopleptic reacting to the Im Tirzu cartoon. Sorry for not buying into the phony self-righteous arm flailing.
You reap what you sow. Far-Lefties suffer from blowback, too.
for the record, I support a 2 state solution etc...
But unlike the cabal of Israel bashers such as NIF, J-Street and other patronizing American Jews whose main connection to Judaism &Israel seems to be absolving themselves from the false accusations against it, I don't think a just peace will ever happen by Jews blaming everything on Israel while whitewashing the relentless Palestinian atrocities.
The jig is up with these phony "pro-Israel" groups. Orwellian in name and naive (or worse) in their mission, they do one thing and that is delay real peace and aid and assist in the demonization of Israel.
Other Jews try to muzzle pro-Israel voices with smears and lies.
http://jta.org/news/article/2010/02/11/1010599/op-ed-j-streets-wrong-turn
NIF is an anti-Israel organization. There is not one thing it has said about Israel that is good. Can you imagine! A deceptive Jewish organization spending its entire - and I underline entire - time and budget bad-mouthing the only moral country in the world. What's the reason? Simple. These people are alienated Jews who are not comfortable with a Jewish state . They believe this Jewish state arouses antisemitism against secularists like themselves. Ergo - bash Israel. Well... I'm so delighted Israel has given these pseudo Jews their walking papers.
As long as we’re clearing the air:
As an American Jew living Texas —the big ol’ rodeo buckle of the Bible Belt and home of John Hagee— nothing is worse than right-wing Israelis who fall in with “Christian Zionists” such as CUFI because their short term goals happen to coincide, yet they dismiss and disparage left-leaning American Jews who have the long-term survival of Israel at heart. Wait ’til Jesus fails to show up on schedule and these Christians cease to be Zionists because of we Jews’ stiff-neckedness.
Nurit: As a former officer of a Zionist organization, as a continuing Zionist and as a devoted supporter of J Street, I would like to inform you that we Jewish-Americans are not as ignorant as you hope.
Haaretz is not a “rag,” and almost all of its reporting is accurate.
There is sad but overwhelming evidence for the decline of respect for the law by institutional Israel. Barak’s refusal to obey the High Court’s order to move the separation barrier is evidence. The repeated defiance by the Jerusalem police of the lower courts is evidence. Contrary to the basic law, the discrimination in matters of water supplied to and building permits issued to Arab-Israelis is evidence. And, contrary to Israel’s treaty obligations, the failure of Israel to pursue those territory-settlers who have beaten Palestinians and destroyed their crops is still more evidence.
Finally, I do not for a moment believe that you are in favor of a two-state peace, short of a peace that grants Israel sovereignty everywhere between the Jordan and the sea. Those of us who truly care about Israel know that it can’t survive without a just two-state peace.
Danny: I am proud that the majority of Jewish-Americans are steadfastly liberal. From Biblical times ‘til today, it has always been one of our chief responsibilities to relieve the suffering of our neighbors and even of the strangers among us. Most American conservatives reject this responsibility.
a propos the haaretz paper: it has been repeatedly caught eliminating "inconvenient-to-its-agenda" sections in the English version of its Hebrew articles. So it would seem that haaretz launders its english edition so that hebrew-illiterate americans remain are ignorant of the full picture of events in Israel.
As for respect for law, I doubt that there any country whose judiciary wields as much power as that of Israel. But on the rare occasions when the Supreme Court here rules against a leftist peeve (and this is indeed rare because of the selection of supreme court judges here has been controlled by the supreme judges themselves and the supreme court is by and large limited to Ashkenazi and left-leaning ) such as in the Sheikh jarrah dispute over property ownership [ the evidence for Jewish ownership was so overwhelming and the Arab claims were so unfounded that the Supreme Court had little choice but to rule in favor of the jewish owners ] the leftist defenders of the law neverthless come out in force to reject the Supreme Court's decision.
Americans of mosaic ancestry seem obsessed with applying their American political proclitivities into a Israel-Arab context in which they have no direct personal experience. Anyone who can arrogantly assert that: " Those of us who truly care about Israel know that it can’t survive without a just two-state peace." - as if repeating an empty slogan makes it so - ought to stick to the American political circus where slick, pie-in-the-sky empty talk can carry the day. In light of repeated efforts by israel (all categotically rejected by the Arabs) it is becoming quite apparent to the israeli electorate that NO two-state solution is acceptable to the Arabs if one of the states is a Jewish State.
Many Israeli far-leftists and their NIF amen chorus are fundamentally anti-democratic and opposed to freedom of speech. That is why they think they are entitled to smear Israel but no on on earth is entitled to criticize THEM! The real McCarthyists are the leftists seeking to silence those who would criticize the anti-Israel Left! Today the worst McCarthysist spend their days accusing their legitimate critics of engaging in "McCarthyism." This is leftwing fascism!
Reuven, you write well while ignoring the facts, so I will repeat them.
“There is sad but overwhelming evidence for the decline of respect for the law by institutional Israel. Barak’s refusal to obey the High Court’s order to move the separation barrier is evidence. The repeated defiance by the Jerusalem police of the lower courts is evidence. Contrary to the basic law, the discrimination in matters of water supplied to and building permits issued to Arab-Israelis is evidence. And, contrary to Israel’s treaty obligations, the failure of Israel to pursue those territory-settlers who have beaten Palestinians and destroyed their crops is still more evidence.”
Levitt misses the point. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over security matters and no legitimate say in where the fence goes. The loss of respect for law is by the Supreme Court and its anti-democratic doctrine of judicial activism, imposing judicial tyranny on the country, dictating policy decisions undemocratically. The only discrimination in Israel is anti-Jewish discrimination. Chanting mantras about Arabs suffering discrimination shows you know nothing at all about Israel. Settlers do not beat Palestinians; Palestinians mass murder settlers and other Jews.
Cut the crap! Stop the mindless bleating of Arab propaganda!
I support the attack on CUFI because CUFI funding postpones the final solution to the Palestinian problem, which is implementation of the Right to Return. As a Jew, I am embaraased by israel which has garnered more UN resolutions than the other 202 member states combined. It is time for progressives and the Forward editorial staff to endorse the Boycott, Divestment Sanctions movemenet, and I hope the NIF will take this on too. I support a New Israel of universal economic justice that supersedes an old israel of quaint religious rites and territoriality
This comment is addressed to the issue of women praying at the Western Wall in the same way that men pray there. It is the position of the Orthodox Israelis, that women and men have different life functions based upon their biological realities. Men cannot give birth to children, therefore their role in the family is limited to physical, emotional and financial support. Men cannot nurse a child and do not bond with children in the same way that women do, starting, for example, with the pitch of their voice. The Orthodox recognize these differences as G-d given, and object to women becoming like men, whether it been in the religious sphere, or in the economic one. Thus, they object to a woman making her career paramount in her life, as opposed to the raising of children. More could be said, but I think that the point is clear.
Now, are they wrong? Are women who want to work full time, wear men's clothing, pray like men, and engage in everything that men do right in what they think. I don't know, but, in America there are increasing numbers of Jewish woman for whom a career is paramount and their role in motherhood and in child rearing is a distant second. They have become like men in their interests, and the result may have been that fewer and fewer of them are getting married. Ask yourself this: Is a women attractive to a man when he must compete with her in every sphere of life, and he must abrogate the traditional role that has applied to men in every century before the middle of the 20th?
You may not agree with the Orthodox Heredi of Israel, and of the United States, but there is reason in their thinking. A pure egalitarian society may work in the minds of some women, but does it represent the interests of society, both Israeli and American? Perhaps there is a reason why there is so little support for their position in Israeli society. Perhaps there is a reason why so many of our young men marry out of the faith.
Joel, it would take more than a few lines to educate you with regard to the fallacy of your facile accusations. But, nowadays with google and other poweful search engines, one can familiarize oneself with complex issues. This is so provided one doesn't have an a priori agenda that causes one to filter out everything not consistent with the uni-dimensional dogma of a true believer. OK, so even though you haven't yet done your homework, let's briefly look at your accusations. 1/ Where precisely has Barak refused to carry out a Court-instructed move of the security barrier? If he were in actual contempt of a court decision, he would be royally raked over the coals here. Yes, the current Israel supreme court still espouses the Ahron Barak doctrine that literally everything is subject to the judgement of the courts - even life-and-death security issues and even matters whose economic consequences pose huge difficulties (like the judicial cancellation of a government decision to privatize certain penal facilities as is done in many western countries including the USA. the Israeli government complied even though the damage to the country was in the billions). Just this week, a section of the security barrier is starting to be moved (it will take at least a year to complete the expensive work) in order to comply with court-dictated rulings. Quite frankly, if Ehud Barak were to simply violate court orders, it would be HEADLINE NEWS here. But you claim is groundless. The plain fact is that Ehud Barak is not in contempt of court nor would anyone familiar with the situation here accuse him of this. The judicial tyranny of the Israel supreme court that you complain about is indeed a problem. But the problem of undue judicial activism is compounded by predominantly left-wing disposition of the Supreme Court. Am I to understand that you believe that fundamental policy should be set by a duly-elected government and not by a largely self-appointed Supreme Court. Or did I misunderstand you? As for water allocation, here you must do your homework since you are badly misinformed. The official water allocation for non-Israeli Arabs is disproportionately large. In any case there is so much illegal "wild-cat" Arab drilling of illegal water wells into the aquifiers that your claim is not only false - it is absurd. Do your homework. You can rest assured that both the police and the IDF are expend considerable effort and resources to "go after" Israeli lawbreakers. This is not an area where law enforcement is lax. Check it out. In fact, the authorities are overly aggressive in actions against Israelis living in Judea and Shomron. Just today, the highly-publicized accusation of acid throwing by a "settler" into the eye of a police-man was shown to be a canard. But the point is to prove that the "settlers" are monsters, so why not accuse them of being monsters even though they are not. Everybody needs a monster, right. israel serves as the monster for the UN. the "settlers" serve as the monster for the left. Now that you have at least a start of a response to what you raised and also an additional 2 cents, perhaps you would be so kind to enlighten the readers here by addressing the central question of this thread that, so far, you and other NIF and JStreet devotees have adamantly evaded: Why does the New Israel Fund bankroll groups that are manifestly hostile to Israel? And please don't tell us that when these groups spit in Israel's face it's really a welcome rain. Do you really have a serious response?
My previous posting refers to Joel. The intent is Joel A. Levitt and not Joel L. Friedlander. As for the latter: you may want to come and examine the society here first-hand before generalizing. The Israel workplace is geared for women wanting BOTH a satisfying career AND a satifying family life.
To Samir: You not only ignore the facts, you make them up. Readers can find the Basic Law on the Judiciary enacted in 1984 and signed by YITZCHAK SHAMIR, then Prime Minister and CHAIM HERZOG, then President of the State below.
First, as set forth in Chapter 2 Paragraph 4: Judges of the Supreme court are neither elected solely by members of the court nor are they appointed by members of the court at all. judge shall be appointed by the President of the State upon election by a Judges' Election Committee. They are elected by a committee that includes: the President of the Supreme Court, two other judges of the Supreme Court elected by the body of judges thereof, the Minister of Justice and another Minister designated by the Government, two members of the Knesset elected by the Knesset and two representatives of the Chamber of Advocates elected by the National Council of the Chamber. The Minister of Justice shall be the chairman of the Committee. Further, judges are appointed by the President of the State upon election by a Judges' Election Committee.
Second, as set forth in Chapter 3: The Supreme Court may sit as a High Court of Justice. It is the law that when sitting as a High Court of Justice, the Supreme Court is empowered to order State and local authorities and the officials and bodies thereof, and other persons carrying out public functions under law, to do or refrain from doing any act in the lawful exercise of their functions or, if they were improperly elected or appointed, to refrain from acting.
Thus, the High Court has jurisdiction over security matters. Not only that, but, as set forth in Chapter 4: this Law cannot be varied, suspended, or made subject to conditions by emergency regulations.
Finally, the Basic Law on the Judiciary was enacted by the Knesset, and if the Knesset believes that the court is acting undemocratically, it can amend this law or even revoke it.
Basic Law: The Judiciary Chapter One: Basic Provisions Judicial power 1. (a) Judicial power is vested in the following courts**:
(1) the Supreme Court; (2) a District Court; (3) a Magistrate's Court; (4) another court designated by Law as a court.
In this Law, "judge" means a judge of a court as aforesaid. (b) Judicial power is vested also in the following:
(1) a religious court (beit din); (2) any other court (beit din): (3) another authority all as prescribed by Law.
(c) No court or court (beit din) shall be established for a particular case. Independence 2. A person vested with judicial power shall not, in judicial matters, be subject to any authority but that of the Law. Publicity of proceedings 3. A court shall sit in public unless otherwise provided by Law or unless the court otherwise directs under Law. Chapter Two: Judges
Appointment of judges 4. (a) A judge shall be appointed by the President of the State upon election by a Judges' Election Committee. (b) The Committee shall consist of nine members, namely, the President of the Supreme Court, two other judges of the Supreme Court elected by the body of judges thereof, the Minister of Justice and another Minister designated by the Government, two members of the Knesset elected by the Knesset and two representatives of the Chamber of Advocates elected by the National Council of the Chamber. The Minister of Justice shall be the chairman of the Committee.
(c) The Committee may act even if the number of its members has decreased, so long as it is not less than seven.
Nationality 5. Only an Israeli national shall be appointed judge. Declaration of allegiance 6. A person appointed judge shall make a declaration of allegiance before the President of the State. The declaration shall be as follows:
"I pledge myself to be in allegiance to the State of Israel and to its laws, to dispense justice fairly, not to pervert the law and to show no favour.". Period of tenure 7. The tenure of a judge shall begin upon his declaration of allegiance and shall end only -
(1) upon his retirement on pension; or (2) upon his resignation; or
(3) upon his being elected or appointed to one of the positions the holders of which are debarred from being candidates for the Knesset; or
(4) upon a decision of the Judges' Election Committee prepared by the chairman of the Committee or the President of the Supreme Court and passed by a majority of at least seven members; or
(5) upon a decision of the Court of Discipline.
Retired judge 8. A judge who has retired on pension may be appointed to the position of a judge for such time, in such manner and on such conditions as may be prescribed by Law. Restriction on re-posting 9. (a) A judge shall not be permanently transferred from the locality where he is serving to a court in another locality save with the consent of the President of the Supreme Court or pursuant to a decision of the Court of Discipline. (b) A judge shall not without his consent be appointed to an acting position at a lower court.
Salary and benefits 10. (a) The salaries of judges and other payments to be made to them during or after their period of tenure or to their survivors after their death shall be prescribed by Law or by a decision of the Knesset or of a Knesset committee empowered by the Knesset in that behalf. (b) No decision shall be passed reducing the salaries of judges only.
Judge not to engage in additional occupation, etc. 11. A judge shall not engage in an additional occupation, and shall not carry out any public function save with the consent of the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice. Criminal proceedings 12. (a) No criminal investigation shall be opened against a judge save with the consent of the Attorney-General, and no information shall be filed against a judge save by the Attorney-General. (b) A criminal charge against a judge shall not be tried save before a District Court consisting of three judges unless the judge has consented that the charge be tried in the ordinary manner.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to categories of offences designated by Law.
Disciplinary proceedings 13. (a) A judge shall be subject to the jurisdiction of a Court of Discipline. (b) A Court of Discipline shall consist of judges and judges retired on pension appointed by the President of the Supreme Court.
(c) Provisions as to the grounds for instituting disciplinary proceedings, the modes of filing complaints, the composition of the bench, the powers of the Court of Discipline and the disciplinary measures it shall be authorised to impose shall be prescribed by Law. The rules of procedure shall be in accordance with Law.
Suspension 14. Where a complaint or information is filed against a judge, the President of the Supreme Court may suspend him from office for such period as he may prescribe. Chapter Three: The Courts
Supreme Court 15. (a) The seat of the Supreme Court is Jerusalem. (b) The Supreme Court shall hear appeals against judgments and other decisions of the District Courts.
(c) The Supreme Court shall sit also as a High Court of Justice. When so sitting, it shall hear matters in which it deems it necessary to grant relief for the sake of justice and which are not within the jurisdiction of another court (beit mishpat or beit din).
(d) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (c), the Supreme Court sitting as a High Court of Justice shall be competent -
(1) to make orders for the release of persons unlawfully detained or imprisoned. (2) to order State and local authorities and the officials and bodies thereof, and other persons carrying out public functions under law, to do or refrain from doing any act in the lawful exercise of their functions or, if they were improperly elected or appointed, to refrain from acting;
(3) to order courts (batei mishpat and batei din) and bodies and persons having judicial or quasi-judicial powers under law, other than courts dealt with by this Law and other than religious courts (batei din), to hear, refrain from hearing, or continue hearing a particular matter or to void a proceeding improperly taken or a decision improperly given;
(4) to order religious courts (batei din) to hear a particular matter within their jurisdiction or to refrain from hearing or continue hearing a particular matter not within their jurisdiction, provided that the court shall not entertain an application under this paragraph is the applicant did not raise the question of jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity; and if he had no measurable opportunity to raise the question of jurisdiction until a decision had been given by a religious court (beit din), the court may quash a proceeding taken or a decision given by the religious court (beit din) without authority.
(e) Other powers of the Supreme Court shall be prescribed by Law. Other courts 16. The establishment, powers, places of sitting and areas of jurisdiction of the District Courts, the Magistrates' Courts and other courts shall be in accordance with Law. Appeal 17. A judgment of a court of first instance, other than a judgment of the Supreme Court, shall be appealable as of right. Further hearing 18. In a matter adjudged by the Supreme Court by a bench of three, a further hearing may be held by a bench of five on such grounds and in such manner as shall be prescribed by Law. Retrial 19. In a criminal matter adjudged finally, a retrial may be held on such grounds and in such manner as shall be prescribed by Law. Established rule 20. (a) A rule laid down by a court shall guide any lower court. (b) A rule laid down by the Supreme Court shall bind any court other than the Supreme Court.
Registrar 21. A court may have a registrar, who may or may not be a judge.
Chapter Four: Miscellaneous Provisions
Law not to be affected by emergency regulations 22. This Law cannot be varied, suspended, or made subject to conditions by emergency regulations. Provisions to be prescribed by Law 23. Provisions as to the following matters shall be prescribed by Law:
(1) the manner of electing, and duration of the tenure of, the members of the Judges' Election Committee; (2) qualifications for the posts of judges of the various grades;
(3) the manner of appointing the President of the Supreme Court, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court and the President and Vice-president of a District Court and a Magistrate's Court;
(4) the conditions and procedures for terminating the tenure of a judge;
(5) the manner of appointing a judge to an acting assignment at another court and of transferring a judge, temporarily or permanently, from the locality where he is serving to a court in another locality;
(6) proceedings for the suspension of a judge from office, and review of the suspension;
(7) the matters which the courts of the different grades are to hear by a single judge or by three or more judges;
(8) the manner of designating the judge or judges who is or are to hear a particular matter.
Provisions to be prescribed under Law 24. Provisions as to the following matters shall be prescribed under Law:
(1) rules as to the administration of the courts, the making thereof and responsibility for their implementing; (2) the rules of procedure of the Judges' Election Committee;
(3) procedure for the resignation of a judge;
(4) procedure for the appointment and the powers of the registrar of a court;
(5) the number of judges who are to serve in the courts of the different grades and location.
YITZCHAK SHAMIR Prime Minister
CHAIM HERZOG President of the State
* Passed by the Knesset on the 25th Adar Alef, 5744 (28th February, 1984) and published in Sefer Ha-Chukkim No. II 10 of the 4th Adar Bet, 5744 (8th March, 1984), p. 78; the Bill and an Explanatory Note were published in Hatza'ot Chok No. 1348 of 5748, p. 237.
** The Hebrew for "court" is beit mishpat (plural: batei mishpat) or beit din (plural: batei din). In the translation of this Law, "court" stands for beit mishpat unless the expression beit din is added in brackets.
To Reuven, you wrote, “Where precisely has Barak refused to carry out a Court-instructed move of the security barrier?”
The case dates back to June 2006. The High Court of Justice at that time responded to a petition from Hamoked - the Center for the Defense of the Individual, and instructed the Defense Ministry to move the route of the separation fence near the villages of Azzun and Nabi Ilyas in the northern West Bank.
Aharon Barak, who was then president of the Supreme Court, stated in the ruling that "the petition points to an event that cannot be tolerated according to which the information that was supplied to the court did not reflect all of the considerations that were taken into account by the decision makers."
He was referring to the fact that the Defense Ministry did not reveal to the court that the route of the fence was congruent with the map of the plan to expand the settlement of Tzufim at the expense of Palestinian lands. The prosecution promised that the fence would be dismantled within six months from the completion of the fence along the new route. Four years later, the fence remains in place.
According to Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch: "It is not possible to put up with conduct of this kind," she scolded the representatives of the prosecution and she ordered the state to pay the petitioners' court costs of NIS 20,000. This sum was added to another NIS 50,000 which the taxpayers paid when the original ruling was handed down as well as the salaries of the lawyers from the prosecution who were sent to defend against the contempt of court ruling. Before closing the case, Beinisch stated that in countries where there is a rule of law, a political and public storm would have arisen over this. In this case before us, the state took the law into its own hands," she said.
This isn’t the only relevant case. More than two years ago, the court ordered the state to consider an alternative to the fence's route that was robbing the village of Bil'in of lands in favor of the settlement of Modi'in Ilit, and to do so "within a reasonable period of time." In the ruling that was handed down after 15 months, Beinisch wrote that the alternative that was chosen was not in accordance with the court decision and she ordered the state to abide by it "without further delay." Since then 10 months have elapsed, the residents of the village and their supporters have demonstrated, the police have used tear gas, and the fence is still in place.
A few weeks before 13/10/2009, the Defense Minister's adviser on settlement affairs, Eitan Broshi, submitted affidavit to the High Court of Justice indicating that from Ehud Barak's point of view, anything relating to Palestinian rights, and not only the High Court's rulings, are nothing more than a recommendation.
Next you wrote: ‘The judicial tyranny of the Israel supreme court that you complain about is indeed a problem.” Apparently the Knesset disagrees. They passed the Basic Law on the Judiciary, and they can amend it, but they have chosen not to do so.
Third you wrote: “As for water allocation, here you must do your homework since you are badly misinformed.” I would be badly misinformed if I believed you.
Israel's illegal settlements receive a continuous supply of water, even in the hot summers when water is scarce. In 2000, a senior official who had worked for the Israeli Water Commission told the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem in telephone conversation that "Mekorot's obligation is, first of all, to the Jewish settlements and Israeli citizens" (Thirsty for a Solution," B'Tselem, July 2000). For example, in its October 2009 report "Water - A question of survival for Palestinians," the Applied Research Institute Jerusalem reported that Mekorot reduced the supplies from 10,000 cubic meters per day to 6,000 cubic meters per day in Bethlehem this summer. In June, July and August, Mekorot cut water supplies from 5,000 cubic meters a day to 2,500 cubic meters a day in the Hebron municipality as increased demand from the Israeli settlements were prioritized over the needs of Palestinians. In response to the cuts in water supply, a coalition of Israeli, Palestinian and international non-governmental organizations coordinated the Breaking the Thirst water convoy to the villages in the south Hebron hills on 26 September.
International law limits the rights of an occupying power to utilize water resources of an occupied territory, and prohibits an occupying power from discriminating between residents of an occupied territory. However, Israel has illegally annexed water resources from the Occupied Palestinian Territories since 1967. Israel exercises full control over Palestinian water resources, and employs a discriminatory policy of water distribution. Mekorot plays a key role in Israel's water policies and assists in its violation of international law.
Then you wrote: “Everybody needs a monster, right. Israel serves as the monster for the UN. The "settlers" serve as the monster for the left.” No, the issue is not monsters, the issue is Israel’s survival and prosperity. So long as Israel’s political leaders focus on remaining in power instead of on the welfare of the state, Israel is in terrible danger.
It seems that you have learned the wrong lesson from the American Republican party. The correct lesson is that Lying is self-defeating.
joel, it's late at night here so I will get back later on the court and water issues. Suffice it to say here that the start of security barrier moving that i referred to was precisely at Bil'in. And you can get a brief start in learning about the water situation by reading:
Water consumption from natural sources in Israel decreased since the Six-Day War
Gov't study: Water usage from natural sources down since 1967 By Zafrir Rinat Haaretz 6 April 2008 www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/971903.html
Contrary to established opinion, water consumption from natural sources in Israel has actually decreased since the Six-Day War, even though the population more than doubled, a recent study found.
The state Water Authority conducted the study, among other reasons, to refute a claim made by international water experts that Israel launched the 1967 war to increase its water pumping capacity.
The main factor in the study's findings is the major increase in use of purified wastewater for agricultural irrigation. Half of the consumption in recent years has been met also through two large desalination plants.
Despite this, Israel is in a severe crisis because several cycles of draught years over the past two decades created steep drops in the level of Lake Kinneret and groundwater reservoirs, even though overall water consumption did not go up.
According to the Water Authority's data, the annual natural water consumption for 1967 was 1.4 billion cubic meters. In 2006 it was 1.23 billion cubic meters. The rest, some 600,000 cubic meters, were supplied through purified wastewater and desalination plants.
"That figure refutes the claim that we started the war to utilize more water," the official in charge of water issues with the Palestinians and Jordanians, Baruch Nagar, said.
Nagar is referring to a contention made last month in an interview with Haaretz by the German hydrogeologist Clemens Messerschmid, who serves as a consultant on water projects for the Palestinians in the territories: "For Israel to consume all the water it does, it must keep that water away from its neighbors and from the people it is occupying - and this is evident in the Golan, Lebanon, Jordan and the occupied territories."
When the total natural water consumption is divided per capita, it yields another surprising statistic: Annual consumption in Israel decreased from 508 cubic meters per capita in 1967 to 170 cubic meters today. The latter figure also reflects changes in agriculture, since household water consumption rose steadily.
Use of treated wastewater for irrigation also influences the existing thinking on saving water. At an Israeli Water Association conference last month, the Water Authority's director, Prof. Uri Shani, said that Israeli household consumption is "perfectly reasonable." Most household water winds up being recycled for irrigation, Shani claimed, but this is not the case with water for public parks and gardens, so that is the area where savings measures are most in need. __________________________________________________________________ The following article and its reference is very useful: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 MFA: Response to Amnesty International's report on Israeli-Palestinian water issues
27 Oct 2009 Israel has fulfilled all its obligations under the water agreement regarding the supply of additional quantities of water to the Palestinians, and has even extensively surpassed the obligatory quantity.(Communicated by the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson)
The Israel-Palestinian water policy is based on an interim agreement between the two parties, particularly on Article 40 of Annex III to the agreement, which relates to the question of water and sewage. According to the agreement, 23.6 million cubic meters of water will be allocated to the Palestinians annually. In actual effect, they have access to twice as much water.
Israel has fulfilled all its obligations under the water agreement regarding the supply of additional quantities of water to the Palestinians, and has even extensively surpassed the obligatory quantity. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have significantly violated their commitments under the water agreement, specifically regarding important issues such as illegal drilling (they have drilled over 250 wells without the authorization of the Joint Water Commission) and handling of sewage. (The Palestinians are not constructing sewage treatment plants, despite their obligation to do so and the important foreign funding earmarked for this purpose).
Data regarding consumption of fresh natural water clearly shows Israel's fair treatment of Palestinian requirements:
In 1967, Israel's per capita consumption of fresh natural water was 508 (m3/person/year). In 2008, it dramatically dropped to 149. The Palestinian figures for thesame consumption went from 86 (in 1967) to 105 (in 2008).
Israel has offered to supply Palestinians with desalinated water, but this possibility is systematically rejected due to political motivations.
While Israel has significantly reduced its use of fresh natural water since 1967, consistently closing the gap between Israeli and Palestinian consumption, it remains unclear how Amnesty's claims of "discriminatory policies" towards Palestinians can sustain the trial of reality. The authors of the report chose to ignore Israeli data, papers and reports, although they contain verifiable facts presented with total transparency. This questionable approach, which consists in systematically disregarding Israeli material while relying exclusively on Palestinian allegations, raises doubts as to the real intentions of the report's authors and of the organization itself.
A thorough report on the issue of water between Israel and the Palestinians can be consulted on the website of the Israel Water Authority.
www.water.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/A111EFEF-3857-41F0-B598-F48119AE9170/0/WaterIssuesBetweenIsraelandthePalestinians.pdf ___________________________________________________________________ Joel, there is no gap between those who you call israel's political leaders and the people of israel who duly elected the parties that formed the government. Why do you presume to dismiss the democratic will of the people of Israel. Your ideas parallel those who have either failed to muster enough votes to get elected here or managed to garner a handful of knesset seats.
israel has always been in terrible danger. nevertheless it has not only survived but also prospered.
You are intent on dragging american politics into your posting even though I have nothing to do with the American republican party, nor am evenI an American. instead of blindly projecting American domestic politics into the mid-east, you might try applying what you call "the correct lesson" - "that lying is self-defeating" to your own president. The pre-election sales pitches he used are quite at odds with his in-office words and deeds. Let's hope he and his handlers have a steep learning curve. So far Obama seems like a blinkered idealogue glued to his teleprompter oblivious to the harsh realities out there. No wonder his approval rating among israeli's - for whatever that is worth - is abysmally low.
finally, all I hear from you and you ideological partners is stony silence regarding why the NIF bankrolls groups that are manifestly hostile to Israel. maybe you could shed some substansive, reasoned light on why it is tabu for you to address this issue reasonably?
Reuven, I’m despairing of being able to deal with your suicidal blindness.
You wrote: “Israel has always been in terrible danger. Nevertheless it has not only survived but also prospered.” Correct, but Israel has always had the support of most of the West and of the Jewish community in galut, which support is rapidly turning into indignant antagonism.
And, you asked: “…all I hear from you and your ideological partners is stony silence regarding why the NIF bankrolls groups that are manifestly hostile to Israel. Maybe you could shed some substantive, reasoned light on why it is taboo for you to address this issue reasonably?” It is not taboo. The charge that NIF bankrolls groups that are manifestly hostile to Israel is a gross distortion. The groups that NIF bankrolls are trying to improve the situation of their Israeli communities, of their poor, of their towns, of their fellow Arab-Israelis, of their fellow Russian or African immigrants or they are trying to prevent the destruction of the Israeli environment. Some few of these groups may be hostile to Israel, but most group members are patriotic Israelis, many of whom are opposed to the lemmings who, for one reason or another, advocate Israel’s expansion. You can find an exhaustive list of NIF’s clients at http://www.nif.org/issue-areas/grantees/.
At last, there is something about which we agree. Obama’s performance has been quite disappointing, but we are not done. I expect that Obama will eventually lead the international community in paying for the repatriation of all the settlers who don’t want to live as citizens of the peace-agreement-established Palestinian state, and that he will lead in protecting the security of Israel and of the Palestinian state by garrisoning the agreed upon border until both parties request that these garrisons be withdrawn.
Joel A. Levitt: If by your admission you are despairing then that's already progress because I think israel would certainly be better off when you drop the Levitt blather on what you know so little about and slently adopt A "Leave-it" alone approach . Since this sentence may invoke the unpredictable wrath of the heavy-handed censor, I continue in a separate posting that addresses your earlier water spout.
Let's look at the real water allocation now that Joel A. has presented anecdotal, anonymous telephone allegations and unreliable or false data by ARIJ, a Palestinian environmental NGO (obliviously funded by the EU and the SAPC) that use ecological issues to promote a radical anti-Israel political agenda. Those unfamiliar with ARIJ may want to look at:
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=99
The following is characteristic of ARIJ's fabrications: On September 2, 2004, ARIJ published a story on its partner website for "Monitoring Israeli Colonization Activities in the Palestinian Territories" entitled "Ecocide in Tequ'a Town". It claimed that the IDF had "burned considerable areas of cropped lands and forbid Palestinian farmers to reach their lands using dogs" and then "randomly dispensed flyers on the farmers' lands informing of the Army's intention to clear all trees (mostly olive) existing along the Israeli bypass roads". In fact, a visit to the area demonstrates that no trees have been uprooted from the area around Tekoa, despite their use as a cover for terrorists to shoot at the road.
ARIJ's involvement in the Divestment campaign is yet further evidence of its political agenda. It joins other alleged "environmental" Palestinian NGOs such as the "Palestinian Hydrology Group" and the "Environmental Education Center" among many NGOs promoting disinvestment in Israeli products (see Electronic Intifada). The claims published by ARIJ and other groups reflect the extreme political agendas of environmental NGOs following the Johannesburg summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. After the summit some very modest criticism was heard from European and Swiss Development Cooperation officials, but there was no reduction in their financial support ARIJ can even boast that in 2003, it "was able to restore its activities to that of 2000 and resume its development…. This is basically attributed to the fact that the Swiss Development Cooperation granted [it] a core funding program that enabled it to proceed with its work" And EU funding of ARIJ leapt considerably from less than $100,000 in 2002 to around $250,000 in 2003.
So what does the real data show. A detailed, March 2009, quantitative report The Issue of Water between Israel and the Palestinians prepared by the Water Authority of the State of Israel may be found at: http://www.water.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/A111EFEF-3857-41F0-B598-F48119AE9170/0/WaterIssuesBetweenIsraelandthePalestinians.pdf (you may have to cut and paste the URL or google to access this report)
Principal Conclusions Regarding Implementation of the Water Agreement [In September 1995, the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (also known as Oslo II), including an extensive section (Clause 40) on the question of water and sewage, was signed in Washington.] a. Israel has met all its obligations according to the Water Agreement, in terms of the additional quantities of water to the Palestinians, and has, indeed, even exceeded the requirements.
b. The Palestinians are seriously defaulting on their obligations according to the Water Agreement primarily on two important items:
1) Drilling of Unauthorized "Pirate" Wells - the Palestinians drill water wells without the approval of the JWC(Joint Water Committtee), principally in the northern West Bank; to date, more than 250 unapproved wells have been drilled. [ This does not include the Gaza Strip, where the Palestinians are in full control and where over 3,000 unapproved wells were drilled immediately following Israel's withdrawal, causing a severe drop in water levels and seriously harming the quality of water in the Gaza Aquifer and the general Gaza water economy.]
2) Failure to treat wastewater - the Palestinians are not constructing wastewater treatment plants and discharge their wastewater to streams, contaminating the environment and the groundwater. Some of the wastewater flows into Israeli territory.
c. The Palestinians are not developing and using, quite deliberately, the groundwater resources in the eastern aquifer that were made available to them in the Water Agreement. (This resource has an additional useable quantity of at least 40 MCM/yr. The JWC (Joint Water Committee) approves every request for drilling of wells in the eastern aquifer.) As a result, Israel is compelled to supply more than 30 MCM/yr from its territory to the Palestinians.
I strongly encourage everyone to look at the quantitative data and detailed graphs in the actual support that lead to these conclusions. For example: The total yearly consumption of fresh natural water in Israel fell from 1,411 MCM in 1967 to 1,211 MCM in 2006 even though the population of Israel rose over 250% in the same period (from 2.8 million in 1967 to 7.1 million in 2006). The total yearly consumption of fresh natural water by Palestinians in the "West Bank" rose from 60 MCM in 1967 to 180 MCM in 2006 - a 300% increase - while in the same period the Palestinian population of the West Bank rose over 250% ( from 0.7 million in 1967 to 2.8 million in 2006). In per capita (per person) terms these figures mean: the consumption of fresh natural water in Israel in 1967 was 508 cubic meters per person and in 2006 was 170 cubic meters per person - a per capita reduction of two-thirds! Now the corresponding per capita data for the Palestinian consumption of fresh natural water in the West Bank in 1967 was 85.7 cubic meters per person and in 2006 was 100 cubic meters.
The data for countries bordering Israel is also given in the report.
The bottom line in the water issue: Israel has been moving in the direction of responsible management of a most precious and limited resource - fresh natural water- in an arid region while the Palestinians are deliberately acting irresponsibly with regard to water resources.
Now for homework, in addition to everyone looking over the interesting quantitative details of the water report referred to above, I suggest that those who are fixated-ideologically into a critical-of-Israel mindset may consider doing the following educational exercises: (a)google up the per capita fresh natural water usage data for the USA and compare it to other countries (b)google up the per capita fresh natural water usage data for Texas and compare it to Mexico (c) google up the per capita fresh natural water usage data for south Texas cities and compare it to the per capita data for north Mexico cities near the Texas border. (d) apply the principles used to criticize Israel's water policies to the Texas-Mexico situation.
Ah, but Joel A. may argue that this is not relevant or fair, since the truly enlightened know in their bones that the jewish state is innately evil and must be purified by the flames of the concerned enlightened righteous. Of course, the purification by both verbal and actual fire is for Israel's own well-being and to save its very soul. Well, for whatever reason, it is certainly de rigeur to be fashionably down on terrible Israel these days in today's quite civilized world. Well sorry folks, Jews (and I use the word Jew in its natural, nation/people sense and not in a religious sense) in their ancestral homeland, now called Israel have had enough of being burnt -literally, by for-the-sake-of-heaven inquisitors aided by their pseudo-jew poodles or by cultured barbarians ,the good volk guys and gals who are just dutifully volgening orders and metaphorically, by the hateful malicious (be they acting in the name of a god or just in the name of the good of humanity) or misguided dupes who should know better but don't. Hey, it's Adar - get your megillah and Purim costume ready.
There IS a problem in Israel today. The extreme right wing is taking over the debate and silencing anyone and everyone who does not agree with them 100%. When one reads the thousands of monthly posts on Israeli Internet sites the vile, poison and hatred towards Obama is utterly sickening. When a mosque was burned down a few months ago there were thousands of posts praising its destruction, which was quite frankly, an act of terrorism. When Defense Minister Ehud Barak called soldiers who refused to remove or dismantle settlements insubordinate there were thousands of posts calling Barak, the most decorated solider in Israels history, a traitor and he received death threats and had to have his security increased. When an Israeli general had his men dismantle a few illegal outposts this general and his family received death threats.
Any Jew who voted for or who works for Obama is called an anti-semite, a self hater, and worse. The sickness that was allowed to go on many years ago that led to the assassination of Yitzchak Rabin has become a cancer and is growing. "Self hater," "Anti-Semite," "Enemy of Israel" and worse are what thousands of posters on Israeli sites call anyone who dare criticize any action of the IDF or Netanyahu government or any Jew who voted for or supports Obama. Seventy Eight percent of American Jews voted for Obama and if most of them read the thousands of posts on Israeli Internet sites fund raising for Israel would take a serious nosedive. Obama may be no friend of Israel but he has done nothing to engender the hate filled rhetoric on these sites nor do American Jews who voted for him need to have their faith doubted or their loyalty and support of Israel questioned.
I do NOT agree with Naomi Chazan, not one bit, but if Israel is to remain a democracy then diversity of opinions must be allowed, or else Israel is no better than Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya or Russia. Israel cannot claim, as it always does, that it is the only democracy in the Middle East when it tries to silence those who criticize it. As an American of the age of fifty I have lived thru a time when citizens here lambasted the government for the Vietnam War, the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, the presidencies of Bush, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama, the behaviour of our government during the civil rights movement and much more. Criticism of America has made our country better. I shudder and tremble to imagine what it would have been like if no citizen had been allowed to criticize our leaders and the policies of our government the past fifty years.
Personally, my feelings about Israel are 100% diametrically opposed to the views of Naomi Chazan and JStreet but I am equally appalled by the right wing. They want to silence every Jew that does not agree with their agenda and they are beating the drums of war ever loudly every day. They are disgusted that Obama will not attack Iran and oblivious to the dire straits of the US economy that has millions of its citizens unemployed and our military stretched to the limit fighting two wars with soldiers on their fourth and fifth deployments. A U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran will not be like the Israeli attack on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981. Saddam did nothing. The Iranians will launch a counterstrike and if the Persian Gulf is blocked in any way the price of oil in America could skyrocket, throwing America and Europe into a deep depression - all for the possibility of delaying Iran by two or three years at most. Even before Obama won the Presidency these same right wing lovers of war were belittling Bush for wanting sanctions two years ago. It's nice to want a war when your children don't have to fight and give up their lives as is the case with most the right wing.
The right wing in Israel is going to plunge the entire region into a cauldron of fire and cause the deaths of thousands of innocents on both sides. The problem in the Middle East is that BOTH sides debase and dehumanize the other and neither side truly wants peace. Both want land, but not peace. Instead of having civil discourse in Israel and agreeing to disagree we have name calling, slurs and smears, and behaviour more in tune with the dictatorial regimes that are Israel's neighbors. Netanyahu and his ilk treat the Palestinians worse than Blacks were treated in South Africa thirty years ago and pretend the Palestinians either do not exist or will disappear. It seems that all the terrorism and war has destroyed Israels soul.
Wesley Luterman: Israelis welcome free debate. It is a plain fact of Israeli life that the Israeli press and electronic news media are predominantly (and that's an understatement) left oriented. If you want statistical or qualitative research analyses corroborating this they are available. Nevertheless, in spite of the blatant Israel media bias to the left, the Israel public, after repeatedly being suckered by pie-in-the-sky, peace-will-set-you-free, when-you-wish-upon-a-star policies that literally exploded repeatedly in their faces, have by and large come to a sober center+right realization that it takes two to tango. And there is no use pretending there is a tango partner when the overwhelming evidence shows Israel has been dancing the dance of peace alone. now if you want to quote internet jabber maligning Obama, you don't have to look to Israel for this. The US blogs and media are full of extreme anti-Obama sentiment. So why do you pick on those Israelis who post anti-Obama sentiments? Most Israelis rate Obama quite low but it is not from malice. If you want to find malice toward Obama, you don't have to look in Israel. You can easily find it in the USA. Strange that an American whose country holds their own first amendment rights as sacred should be so passionately negative about free political expression on the internet by some Israelis. And drawing a symmetry between israel and the palestinians is not only ridiculous, it is malicious, baseless slander. Israel has done far more towards establishing a Palestinian State than the Palestinians themselves, who are by-and-large obsessed with bringing down Israel than going about the business of building a state of their own. For your information, Netanyahu and his coalition partners formed a government according to the democratic principles in effect here following a general election by Israeli citizens. There was no leadership-people disconnect. I have the impression that you know very, very little about the Israeli scene, yet you pontificate narishkeit and spew poison about Israel(I guess you have the same mindset of the Obama-haters, except that you somehow think you are allowed to curse out Israel and they aren't allowed to curse out Obama) So let's try a little test to see where you are really at when you don't have the option of sitting on the fence and spitting: If you were forced to leave the USA and had two choices for safe residency: terrible Israel (the evil scourge of mankind) or Iran (the great hope of shiite islamic civilization against the infidels), where would you go? remember, no fence-sitting and no "neither". Too hard? OK let's loosen it up, what if the choice were Israel or any Arab country ( including that paragon of civil rights and equality, Saudi Arabia). Still can't decide?: maybe you would opt for hamas-controlled Gaza (don't express sympathies for Fatah there or you may be thrown off a roof , followed by a fair trial of course). Still too restrictive? maybe try anywhere in Africa , say perhaps Zimbabwe or Libya or Darfur in Sudan? Surely anyone of these places is preferable to you than horrible Israel, whose soul you insist has been destroyed. So spell your preference, Wesley. No fence sitting. And no Canada or New Zealand . How far does your antipathy to israel really go? what? I didn't quite hear what you said....
I confess I’m still shocked when I see a university professor spitting out Israel-hatred. You’d think I would have learned that education doesn’t guard against fanaticism.
After all, this isn’t new. The people driving the new antisemitism are the same people who have driven it in the past.
They’re an elitist group who see themselves as more politically advanced than most people, more “progressive.” As such, they think it’s their job to define our political morality.
The new antisemites call themselves leftists. But when it comes to Israel, they happily team up with the right. There is, for example, nothing leftwing about Hamas or Hezbollah.
Yet in a conflict between a liberal democracy and these fascistic terrorist groups, the far left identifies with the fascists. Why? Because their movement isn’t about what they’re for; it’s about who they’re against.
Two heroes of the new antisemites are John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of The Israel Lobby. They describe Israel as a shitty little country with no oil and claim the U.S. supports Israel only because a Zionist lobby controls America’s Middle East policy.
Mearsheimer and Walt call themselves foreign policy realists, in the same school as Kissinger and Nixon. They wouldn’t dream of describing themselves as “on the left.”
Indeed, David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, pointed out that he’s been saying the same thing as Mearsheimer and Walt all along!
There’s nothing leftwing or rightwing about Israel-hatred. In our time, it’s emerged on the left because of historical accidents.
Back in the 1930s, being a Nazi was cool. They looked at themselves as a progressive movement that was going to wipe away Jew contamination and create a glorious 1,000-year Reich.
As everyone knows, the Nazis enlisted street thugs. But the Nazis also appealed to German intellectuals. At the Wannseeconference, called to discuss the logistics of murdering the Jewish population of Europe, eight of the fourteen participants held doctorate degrees.
Indeed, the Nazis took over the universities more easily than they took the streets. Martin Heidegger, rector of Freiberg University and the foremost German philosopher of his time declared: “The Fuhrer alone is the present and future German reality and its law.”
Some people argue that Heidegger’s Nazism merely reflected his ignorance of reality. But in that case, why did Heidegger attach his enthusiasm to the Nazis?
If it wasn’t because he understood the Nazis, then it was because it was the in thing. All the coolest professors were sporting swastikas in their lapels, and students were wearing brown shirts to class to show their love of fascism, much as students today wear the Palestinian kefiyeh.
It’s no longer cool to be a Nazi. It’s difficult to even imagine a time when it was. That’s why David Duke gets no respect. But his ideas of a Zionist conspiracy aren’t out of fashion - they’ve just migrated to the other side of the political spectrum.
The other bits of history that put the new antisemitism on the Left are its roots in Soviet antisemitism and in the radical politics of the 60s and 70s.
What’s new about antisemitism is the focus on Israel, and the depiction of Israel as uniquely evil - a colonial project and a racist entity - and the claim that the Jews have become Nazis.
These slanders were the handiwork of Soviet propagandists, who spread them through Europe and the third world.
More than anything, though, our Israel-haters are the bastard children of the radicals of the 60s and 70s. But on top of the old quasi-left, anti-war, anti-American ethos, our new extremists have added a layer of antisemitism.
In an earlier age, they might have adopted the anti-clerical and antisemitic politics of Voltaire. Before that, the religious and antisemitic politics of Martin Luther. Before that, the Catholic and antisemitic politics of the Inquisition.
Antisemitism, it seems, has a special attraction for those who believe they’re entitled to define the political morality of their age.
This makes it different from other forms of bigotry. Racists hate blacks, but they don’t define them as the enemy of mankind. However, that’s exactly how antisemites define Jews.
Antisemites create a fantasy of good and evil. They modestly cast themselves in the role of upholding everything that is progressive and holy, and they portray Jews as representing all that is unenlightened and evil. And they try to impose their beliefs on society.
This conflict is again playing itself out. The new antisemites define Israel - and those who support it - as representing the worst political evils: imperialism, racism, apartheid and Nazism. And they’re trying to inflict their twisted vision on the rest of us.
So far, they’re failing. But they can’t be ignored. History shows that whole societies can come to embrace even the most extreme beliefs
It's Adar. So let's try to happily loosen up. There is a quite instructive new video (for English speakers) on the popular new israeli satirical website, Latma. It is quite a propos to the Self-proclaimed Innately Righteous and Omniscient who with devotion and self-sacrifice strive for the sake of all humanity to exorcise the demonic monster, Israel. A new english video describing the background and need for the satiric Latma site may be found at: (even Goldstone makes an appearance)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYd3HtmrLg4 And if the news in Israel and can laugh, you should look at last week's latma show (English subtitles):
www.carolineglick.com/e/2010/02/latma-researches-the-history-o.php
Enjoy.
One comment: you say about Nashot haKotel that they have "failed to marshal significant Israeli support behind their cause." A number of my friends who live in Jerusalem have told me that they simply don't have any connection to the Western Wall anymore after years of feeling pushed out, shoved to the side, minimized. One elderly friend who came to British Mandate Palestine in 1938 remembers, immediately post-1967, that everyone rushed to the wall to joyfully pray together. No separation, no mechitzah. Perhaps the reason why Nashot haKotel has failed to find support among many Israelis is because the only Israelis who care about religion at all anymore are the orthodox.
Your goverment...your ways.....your lawssssssss ....your worddddds
Man talks, G-D laughs....According to the Talmud "everyone who mourns for Jerusalem (peace) the name of the city of G-D, merits to share in her joy"! However the Rabbi Akiba once presented an exception to this saying. When he and a group of his students were walking among the ruins of the temple, his students began to mourn, but rabbi Akiba began to laugh. Startled, his students asked him why he was laughing. The rabbi replied, " Because if the prophecies of its destruction have come to pass, we are certain to see the prophecies of its restoration fulfilled!
Just as this rabbi laughed, so G-D who sists in the heavens will laugh as the nations fall over themselves in defenseless defiance of His will...for it is written Ps. 2..He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vix them in his sore displeasure.
The prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel warned Israel on the eve of the destruction of its monarchy with these words; 'They have healed the brokenness of My people superficially, saying, 'Peace, peace', but there is no peace' (Jeremiah 6: and also 8) thy have misled My people by saying, 'Peace!' when there is no peace" Exekiel 13.
The peace of mankind is their control, their deception of justice, the distruction mankind does to each other...all in the name of justice.